- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:05:36 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter, With reference to your comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0154.html I accept a need for editorial revision, and have recorded it with id 109-ExpressivePower [**]. The purpose of the rest of this message is to try to ensure that I properly understand your concerns. [**] for my own tracking purposes: when the scope of the issue is established, I'll ask Brian to allocate a WG tracking ID. I think the problem can be described thus: [[ There is incorrect wording describing the expressive power of RDF. A formal description would be: "The expressive power of RDF is equivalent to the binary existential-conjunctive subset of first order logic". Any informal explanations should be consistent with this. ]] To further help me understand your concerns, can you clarify to me why you regard the following representations are not legitimate answers to the questions you raise: [[ 1. How can takes(John,book,school) be represented in RDF? <rdf:Description> <rdf:type rdf:resource="ex:TakingEvent" /> <ex:taker rdf:resource="ex:John"/> <ex:taken rdf:resource="ex:Book"/> <ex:to rdf:resource="ex:School"/> </rdf:Description> 2. How can loves(John,spouse(John)) be represented in RDF? <rdf:Description about="ex:John"> <ex:loves rdf:parseType="resource"> <rdf:Description> <ex:spouse rdf:resource="ex:John" /> </rdf:Description> </ex:loves> </rdf:Description> ]] #g -- At 10:26 AM 1/30/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >RDF Concepts states > The expressive power of RDF corresponds to the > existential-conjunctive (EC) subset of first order logic [Sowa]. > >How can > takes(John,book,school) >be represented in RDF? > >How can > loves(John,spouse(John)) >be represented in RDF? > >How can the RDF and RDFS semantic conditions be represented in the >existential-conjunctive subset of first order logic? ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 11:28:31 UTC